Wednesday, January 28, 2009

I have posted all the motions available and given a brief summary of each. Today, two more motions have been released to the public.

The first motion was filed by the Department of Corrections asking Judge Strickland for a clarification of his Order of January 23. In the Motion for Clarification, the DOC indicates that

...this court did not consider the effect such an order would have on prisoner transport operations...According to News 13

We should learn Thursday if Casey Anthony will be in court Friday for the latest hearing. Judge Stan Strickland is expected to rule on motions filed by Anthony's defense lawyers trying to keep her from appearing.

All ASCLAD documents for the past twelve years. The list of items included is quite voluminous.(2)

All government contracts, grants and communications between Oak Ridge Laboratories involving the section relating to Dr. Arpad Vass for the last twelve years. (16)

All contracts, records of payments, documents, memos or any written items including but not limited to drafts, proposals or otherwise involving any media shows by, with, and/or between the Orange County Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, and/or Dr. Jan Garavaglia or her agents or related media entities including but not limited to Discovery Channel, Discovery Health, or its media company that produces on behalf of the same. (19)

A copy of the DNA parentage report... (23)

I highly recommend reading this particular motion. If granted, I can't begin to imagine the amount of paperwork this will entail! I'm thinking something about the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica!

Next Friday morning's motions hearing in the case against Casey Anthony is looking to be quite a memorable event. WESH will be carrying the hearing live at 8:30 AM. Keep checking local stations to see which other ones may be carrying it as well.

For those of you who plan to view the hearing on Friday, here is a ritanita Primer on the motions which will likely be discussed.

On November 20, 2008, the defendant files a document titled Defense Witness List listing three (3) witnesses under "Category A: and otherwise incorporating "the entire State's Witness List by reference."

The motion goes on to cite case law to support the motion. By failing to provide a list of witnesses to the prosecution, they are hindering the ability of the prosecution to depose these people.

There is also a Motion To Inspect Crime Scene, filed on January 20. Apparently, the owner of the property hasn't contacted the defense to give them permission to inspect the property and Baez wants the judge to issue a subpoena.

The defense originally filed a motion on December 11, which was heard in an emergency hearing on December 12. At that time it was ruled that, since the remains had not been officially identified, he did not have the standing for this to be allowed. By Wednesday, December 17, we were treated to videos showing Dr. Lee, Linda Kenney-Baden, and other defense experts of the newly formed "Dream Team" peering at the crime scene from behind the yellow crime-scene tape. The scene was released by law enforcement on December 20.

"While the State is now in the process of providing the hard drive to Morales' computer and have not yet provided a copy of the screen shots, printouts, Excel charts or forensic analysis of the deleted files. We are entitled to know what it was that the State felt was not "incriminating" in order to compare it to any computer analysis that we may wish to perform in this regard."

Obviously, the chloroform is the issue here! Is Ricardo heading under the bus with this?

The next motion is the AMENDED APPLICATION FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM. In this motion, Baez is again asking Texas Equusearch records. As you may recall, this motion was originally heard during the January 8 hearing. It was pointed out that this organization is in Texas and not under the jurisdiction of the Florida courts. (When have we heard this before?) In addition, Tim Miller had not been notified and was not in court. According to this motion, Baez has asked for all the information and has not been given them.

I hope that Tim Miller appears in court with his attorney, Mark NeJame for this. Although I can't find a transcript, I recall Tim stating, with some anger, that Baez wouldn't get a "scrap" of paper from him.

The next motion deals with Casey appearing at future motions hearings. At the January 8 hearing, Judge Strickland ordered Casey brought from the jail to attend the hearing since Baez had not had her sign a waiver. He also stated that Casey needed to sit through the entire hearing that day.

The judge went further on this issue by issuing an Order on January 23 which, while allowing that Casey had the legal right to file such waivers, she would have to appear at all such hearings in the future.

On January 27, Baez filed a NOTICE OF OBJECTION to the Judge's order. Included with the order is a signed waiver from Casey as well as an article from the Sentinel which stated

Anthony sported a dark blue jail-issued jumpsuit and jail-issued flip-flops. Officials shackled her wrists and ankles. Her dark hair fell just past her shoulders, much longer than her first mug shot taken in July.In Baez' motion, he states that in this little paragraph,... the media have focused on the appearance of the Defendant and have generated unsubstantiated rumors regarding the Defendant's physical condition further lessening the integrity of the process...The motion has more to say, but it seems that Baez wants to keep Casey away from the court room since this is such a "circus" of a case. I can't help but wonder, though. Is he afraid of Casey's demeanor? Is he afraid she will have an emotional meltdown? Is he afraid of what she will learn about her case during these hearings? We shall see!

I wonder if Baez will have Casey ready to appear "just in case" or if he will be totally defiant of the judge's order and stand by her waiver. Either way, there could be some fireworks.

The last two motions are essentially Jose Baez temper tantrums, in my opinion.

Baez filed a Motion For Sanctions against the prosecuting attorneys. This motion deals with evidence from the case sent to Dr. Neal Haskell and Dr. David Hall. Baez states that these two gentlemen are not on the State witness list. In addition, when Dr. Lee examined the contents of the white plastic trash bag found in the trunk of Casey's car, the white bag was not made available to him and the defense was not notified where it was. Apparently, it, along with hair and vegetation from the bag had been sent to Dr. Haskell in October, 2008. There is a lot more in the motion, but you can read it for yourself at the link!

...interfering with the 8th Amendment Right of Counsel......on January 26, 2009, it was reported that the Florida Bar Association has "told Eyewitness News (www.wftv.com) that 'someone from the State Attorney's Office forwarded the news releases (about Jose Baez related to alleged remarks made about the prosecutor and/or entertainment deals going into the pocket of Baez) and that's why the Bar opened an investigation...This Prosecutor's Office anonymously reporting if true... is egregious behavior.

Again, you have to read this motion for yourself to believe it. Listening to the legal experts on TV last night, I have to agree with what they were saying. Baez wants the entire prosecution team, from Lawson Lamar on down, to be removed from the case. I can only wonder what Strickland is going to say to this!

Perhaps one of the best reviews of this last motion comes from WFTV's Bill Sheaffer's.

5
comments:

Just for everyones info......the crime scene that Baez wants to search is owned by a man that is 75 years old and holds lots of land in this area. He is listed in some of these holdings as a trustee along with others. The only address given in court records is a P.O. Box number. I am sure that if they really wanted to search this area....there are many ways around this. Just ask all the kids that party there. As for getting rid of the prosecution, there's a good trick for everyone who is charged with a crime. What a putz!

Thanks for the great summaries. I would think the continual request for more and more and more information is maybe reflecting the ideas of lawyers/experts other than Baez - who have been mentioned as associated with the case. My opinion only, but the process seems familiar from other trials I have followed.

CONTRIBUTORS

T&T Readers To Date:

CORRECTIONS

T&T is always happy to make a correction, if warranted, upon request. Correction requests or demands received from a lawyer will be referred to our counsel and will, unavoidably, slow down the correction review process. We consider corrections to be a matter of journalistic integrity and not legal compulsion.

DISCLAIMER:

The expressions in this blog are our opinions or the opinions of our featured writers. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following the blog articles are the opinions and sole property of the commenter's and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.